The Great Communicators of Wall Street

The Financial Industry Is Reviled but It Keeps Its Influence With a Simple Message

By

David Weidner

Updated Nov. 4, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

The late, great George Carlin slayed many sacred cows in his time, but he never picked on politicians.

"Everybody complains about politicians, everyone thinks they suck," Mr. Carlin said in one of his last riffs. "Well where do you think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality."

And, he went on, "if you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna have selfish, ignorant leaders."

If only Mr. Carlin were alive today to see the results of Tuesday's midterm election, and the previous election for that matter, even he might be surprised at how accurate his analysis was.

American voters appear predisposed to voting emotionally. They swept Barack Obama into the White House on a goopy message of "change" and "hope" and after they got it, were so disgusted they voted overwhelmingly for a party whose only cohesive message was a declarative "we're not him."

"Garbage in, garbage out," Mr. Carlin used to say.

It is a cycle as perpetual as the two major parties' search for a simple unifying message. But not every political body is blindly grasping for the mercurial voter sentiment. U.S. corporations and Wall Street specifically, have a time-tested, clear and potent message that resonates: Greed is good.

Americans may be skeptical of big corporations and big finance, but on that point, they can relate.

Cue the reaction of
Thomas Donahue,
president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to Tuesday's results. Voters, he said, "clearly stated that a strong and vibrant private sector is critical to reviving our economy, creating jobs, and putting us on a path to long-term growth. We will work with members of both parties who support policies that enable businesses of all sizes to do what they do best—create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity."

Mr. Donahue is onto something. While many pundits suggested the Republican swing in the House was due to a rebuke of health care, or big government, or an aloof president unsympathetic to the nation's struggles, exit polls found that while those issues mattered some they were all dwarfed by worries about the economy.

More than 80% of voters ranked the economy as the No. 1 issue affecting their voting decisions, according exit polls conducted by the Associated Press.

For them, U.S. business and Wall Street offered what the political parties couldn't or didn't: the prospect of better fortunes through business success. To get there, business needs to be freer from regulation and taxed less.

And if you don't think business interests mattered, consider that of the top 20 recipients of financial-industry campaign contributions, all won but four on Tuesday: Sen. Blanche Lincoln, (D., Ark.), the influential chair of the Senate agriculture committee; Gov. Charlie Christ, (I., Fla.); Carly Fiorina, the Republican former chief executive of
Hewlett-Packard
Co.
; and Alexander Giannoulias, the Illinois state treasurer who lost a Senate bid to Rep. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.).

Even among the losses, it could be argued Wall Street won a few. Mr. Kirk actually ranked fifth among the top 20 recipients of financial industry contributions while Mr. Giannoulias ranked 18th, according to OpenSecrets.org. A Wall Street-backed victory by Sen. Lincoln may have softened her tough stance on derivatives regulation, but her defeat makes the issue even more uncertain.

Moreover, if you think Wall Street is partisan to "business friendly" Republicans consider that the industry's $65 million in campaign contributions made through Oct. 13 actually were split evenly between the parties, with a slight edge to Democrats. Indeed, three of the top four recipients of financial industry cash were Democrats: New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada.

If there is a common thread among this disparate collection it is this: Wall Street likes influential members of Congress regardless of party affiliation. It leans pro-business. Even more than that, it likes winners and the potential for influencing them.

Wall Street's record in supporting midterm winners runs afoul of an electorate cynical about lobbyists, special interests and so-called industry shills. So why the support? In a very direct way it comes down to Mr. Carlin's assessment: Selfish citizens elect selfish leaders.

Whether it be selfishness or self-interest or simple greed, most people vote based on whether or not they think a candidate will make them—not the nation, not a greater good—better off.

That is why Wall Street's message has appeal for candidates and a public imbued with the "me first" doctrine. In the end, voters are willing to live with special interest influence in Washington as long as they can get lower taxes, the new corporate headquarters in town and the jobs that come with it or credit and mortgages. The risks? That's for the other guys to deal with.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.